PDF said:
We are getting a little off topic. You were already wrong. The Syrian attacks do have to do with sending a message to iran as John Kerry has made very clear. If nuclear weapons are outdated weapons of the past and provide no deterrence please explain Iran and North Korea pursuit to get them. Nuclear weapons are still the ultimate deterrence and far stronger than any economic relation can ever provide. Not that there is no such thing as economic deterrence, it just provide assured destruction like nuclear weapons do. Countries without the economic strength or Great Powers protecting them will seek their own protection and a nuke is a good way to do that. |
Yes, a nuke is easy to get than a strong economy...but how you managed to get that to translate into "more of a deterrent" is a it of a mystery. As I said, look at China, Japan, and Russia. No one fears them due to their army (Japan doesn't own one), but people fear what would happen if trade stopped. Also it is far easier for a nation to stop trade than to start firing nukes everywhere as one is a simple economic move - the other is flat out war.
But the message of attacking Syria to tell Iran not to build weapons is a secondary result. Attacking Syria is to tell the world that you can not do this.
